Exam 15: Rights and Liabilities of the Parties, Discharge and Remedies
Using case law examples, demonstrate how the doctrine of frustration has evolved over the last 200 years.
The doctrine of frustration has evolved significantly over the last 200 years, as demonstrated by various case law examples. One notable case is Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), where the doctrine was first established. In this case, the court held that a contract could be frustrated if an unforeseen event made it impossible to fulfill the contract's purpose. This decision laid the groundwork for the doctrine of frustration.
Another important case that contributed to the evolution of the doctrine is Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council (1956). In this case, the court clarified that the frustrating event must not be due to the fault of either party and that the event must fundamentally change the nature of the contract. This case further refined the application of the doctrine of frustration.
A more recent example of the evolution of the doctrine is the case of Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency (2019). In this case, the court emphasized that the event must be truly unforeseeable and that the parties cannot have expressly allocated the risk of the frustrating event in the contract. This decision further clarified the requirements for frustration and highlighted the importance of foreseeability in assessing frustration.
Overall, these case law examples demonstrate how the doctrine of frustration has evolved over the last 200 years, with courts refining and clarifying its application to ensure fairness and justice in contractual disputes.
The absence of privity of contract will not prevent a claim under the Australian Consumer Law.
True
Which of the following involves the discharge of a contract by performance?
C
The decision of the court in Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 was that:
If one party indicates that they will not be performing their part of the contract prior to the time for performance, the innocent party must wait until the due date before they can sue for breach.
Why did the court find that the contract was frustrated in the case of: Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337?
Which of the following involves the discharge of a contract by operation of law?
If there has been substantial performance of the contract, the doctrine of substantial performance may permit the defaulting party to still obtain the contract price.
Which of the following is the best description of discharge by release?
Which of the following is the meaning of the Latin term 'quantum meruit'?
Which of the following involves the discharge of a contract by agreement?
Where one party is prevented from performing, the other party may regard the contract as at an end.
Which of the following will NOT result in the discharge of a contract by operation of law?
Which of the following is NOT an example of an assignment of rights by operation of law?
Which of the following involves the discharge of a contract by frustration?
Use practical examples to illustrate each of the four circumstances in which incomplete performance of your obligations under a contract legally and fairly gives rise to a right to at least partial payment.
The purpose of the Frustrated Contracts Acts of NSW and S.A. is to:
When one of the parties fails to perform their obligations under the contract at the time agreed, this is called an:
In the case of discharge by performance, the parties are discharged from any obligations provided that performance corresponds exactly with the terms of the contract.
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)